<p>I do get pretty ticked when folks expressly state or imply that at a state university (perhaps other than the state flagship), the classes won't be challenging and the students won't be smart. A whole lot of kids are there because that is what they could afford. </p>
<p>Among my high school classmates, I was considered lucky/spoiled because I was able to go away to college-didn't have to go to the CC or local communter college and live at home. At no name Sate U, I was consdiered lucky/spoiled because I didn't work during the school year (only during the summer). There were plenty of kids who would go to school all day then waitress or tend bar until midnight. They were likely just as smart as kids at the more expensive schools-they were just attending a school they could afford.</p>
<p>Yea; acquire is the right word. There is not a student in the country; who has gotten the grades in high school; that can't go to college in our country. It might not be an ivy league school, but they can go to college. It is so easy to go to a community college or state "U". It took me almost 10 years to finish up on an associate's degree. Working and going to school. In the next few years I finished a B.S. and then another B.S. I took my time. Graduating high school and getting a job, it is very doable to get an associate's degree in 4 years and a B.S/A in another 2-3 years. That is WORST case scenario. </p>
<p>Best case scenario is grants, scholarships, aid, loans, etc... Did you know that Mini-Mart, McDonald's, other convenient stores and such; not including more traditional full time employment opportunities have employee education benefits. And as has been mentioned; military service; active duty, guard, reserve, etc...</p>
<p>Sorry, but getting a secondary education in this country is easy and inexpensive. Unfortunately, as this thread has pointed out, there are those who believe they should be entitled to an education from Yale, Harvard, etc... And of course, the class warfare kicks in because many will say it isn't fair that I can afford to send my kid to Cornell or Columbia and they can't. Of course, somehow I'm suppose to give some of my money to them to allow them to send their kid to Columbia along side of my kid. And yes, it is my money. Every dollar that the government GIVES to a person, had to come from someone else.</p>
<p>I love it when people talk about how much education costs have gone up through the years. They have no idea. Dollar for dollar, they may be correct, but today has more financial opportunities than ever before. 30 years ago, I didn't have as many of the grants, loans, scholarships, etc... available today.</p>
<p>There are also plenty of people working full time jobs and attending school part time. I think many of us are caught up in parental guilt. We would see ourselves as failures if our children actually did what I stated above, but the reality is my husband did it and is quite successful now. I felt fortunate and lucky to have attended my state u., as I was the first in my immediate family to go to college, yet I would have been very unhappy with myself if my kids were forced to work and attend school part time. Rational - no, but in my gut that is my feeling.</p>
<p>Just so we all know what we're talking about, can someone (taxguy?) post a link to a CC post as an example of someone who feels entitled to an expensive private school education? Yes, I know they're everywhere, but I'd actually like to read a specific example someone has. Thanks.</p>
<p>worried_mom, I agree with you. And I don't like the complaints about financial aid that I hear from people who make a very decent living. However, I'm not going to judge them because their finances are none of my business. Our S will be attending an OOS state university in part because we made a realistic assessment of our capacity to pay, and like missypie, I wish people should stop dissing the non-"prestige" options. There are plenty of smart kids in state schools. A few posts back I was hearing the suggestion that even low-income students are not entitled to grants because they and their parents should just go out there and work hard to acquire a college education. I know people who have benefited from the Harvard plan; these kids truly merited that chance. Now I'm outta here, because this is one of those political threads that I've vowed to keep my bleeding-heart liberal self away from ;)</p>
<p>I have no guilt at all when it cam to providing my kids an education. While I can easily afford Harvard, yale, MIT, etc... I would NEVER even consider spending that much money on my kid's college education. The best gift I can give them is my example of how they can do it on their own and the satisfaction of doing it on their own. However; knowing more employment opportunities and the requirement for a college degree, I am not totally heartless. I figured out that the State "U" school would cost about $15,000 a year for tuition, fees, dorm, food, etc.... That is what I told my kids I would pay towards college. Any school they could get into I would pay up to that amount. Both kids got accepted to many top notch schools. My daughter chose to go to the state "U" because she wanted to stay close to home. (She got in state scholarships and such to make my contribution only about $3000 a year). My son, applied and got accepted to 7 schools. 3 full rides; 2 half rides where my $15,000 contribution would make it possible; and 2 other schools where my contribution would still leave my son with a small $3000-$5000 a year loan. He chose one of the 3 full rides.</p>
<p>Of course, there are some that can't afford the $15,000 state "U". For those people, they've actually got a better chance of spending much less than I would. If you are a millionaire, you don't care about the cost. If you are poor, you actually don't have to pay much at all. It's those who have worked their butt off and saved for their kid's education who get the shaft. no, no guilt here. I don't want my kids going to Columbia, Harvard, etc... totally on my money. That's terrible financial responsibility on my part and it's bad financial education for my kids. If they want a $50,000 a year education, they can work for it. If they can get a free ride, then good for them. If they need extra money beyond what I have set in stone, then they can get loans for the difference.</p>
<p>geezermom; just so you know. I am not totally against grants and aid. Even to the poor. I am against the inequality of the grants and loans. Those who "TRY" and save for their kid's education wind up paying practically full price unless their kid can pull of some outside scholarships or the school offers some merit scholarships. The poor can practically go to any school for almost nothing. That is what I am against. I have no problem with helping the poor go to college. It just doesn't have to be harvard or yale.</p>
<p>I don't see much entitlement at all when it comes to colleges, except a few posters on CC. In the crowd I interact with, most people think they won't qualify for FA and have to be encouraged to apply. They think, and so did I, that people making the average salary in America aren't eligible. Many people give up because they think that college is for the rich.</p>
<p>The private institutions that give grants raise money for them from interest from their endowments and alumni contributions. Many of those people give money because they know what a great difference a quality education made in their life and they want it to be available to others. I use the same thinking every day: my kids go to camp at the Y, I give money for others to go to the Y. I had good prenatal care, I give money so others can have good prenatal care.</p>
<p>I really don't understand the griping against entitlement. Seems like a straw man to me.</p>
<p>"We have a legal theory of agency where an employer is responsible for the acts of their agents or employees. Thus, if an employee goes out and get lunch for the office and negligently drives his/her car killing someone, the employer is responsible!"</p>
<p>Well, there's an alternative to this system. It's bigger government. In New Zealand, they don't have the tort issues we do -- if you're injured, you're compensated by the government, not by the negligent person who may have contributed to the injury. So employers and carnival operators and so on have a lot less to worry about. If you don't want bigger government, then you should prefer our system to the New Zealand system.</p>
<p>Or would you prefer it if people injured by the negligence of others simply had no recourse?</p>
<p>The employee needs to really be out on business before his boss is liable-perhaps if he stopped for lunch on the way to a business appointment and injured someone on the way, or was on the way to lunch to meet a client....but if he's going to a purely social lunch to meet friends, the boss should not be liable. (Our firm researched this big time when a partner caused a car wreck that killed four people!)</p>
<p>mikesauntie captures it perfectly for me: prices have just run up a heck of a lot more than we anticipated. It's not just college, of course. There are all the other financial planning equivalents to eating 5 servings of fruit and vegetables a day and flossing your teeth: retirement, emergency fund, insurance, not to mention saving for a house. Expectations for a lot of these have changed, too. I'd think that when most of us parents started working, we assumed that our retirement would be mostly covered by pensions and social security. We probably also thought that if we just saved for a down payment, slow and steady, we'd be able to afford a starter home. And who worried that our insurance wouldn't cover the majority of our medical bills? Or that you might not even be able to get insurance?</p>
<p>I think that shock can look an awful lot like entitlement, sometimes.</p>
<p>Where did you EVER get the idea that it was anyone's responsiblity other than the student or the parents of that student to pay the cost of a college education? </p>
<p>A dear friend said that to me after listening to me whine about what I perceived to be inequities in the awarding of scholarships. Yes, she was a VERY good friend to have said something like that to me. It was true and it hit me right between the eyes.</p>
<p>If someone is FORTUNATE enough to get financial aid due to income level, a merit scholarship due to academic performance, etc., they should count their lucky stars. We are so blessed in this country to have education available at so many "price points", making a college education available to nearly everyone.</p>
<p>Hanna notes,""We have a legal theory of agency where an employer is responsible for the acts of their agents or employees. Thus, if an employee goes out and get lunch for the office and negligently drives his/her car killing someone, the employer is responsible!"</p>
<p>Well, there's an alternative to this system. It's bigger government. In New Zealand, they don't have the tort issues we do -- if you're injured, you're compensated by the government, not by the negligent person who may have contributed to the injury."</p>
<p>Response: Well how about not making the employer liable for the negligence of the employee! Why not make the person who was laible negligent? What a concept!</p>
<p>So taxguy, when an airline pilot crashes his plane through negligence and 200 people die, are the families of those 200 people really supposed to line up for a take of the pilot's estate?</p>
<p>Here's a related question/issue to consider: A friend of my husband's family has 8 kids. They just keep having kids. He's a cop, so they live on a fairly limited income. He's been asked how he'll educate all those kids. He says, "Oh, the state will take care of that." His position is that he's a tax payer, so he is entitled to financial aid or whatever so that his kids can go to college. (None are expecting an expensive private education.) Is it fine to have more kids than you can pay to educate, and not bother to try to save a cent, because you figure your kids will get financial aid? Some taxpayers have no kids and others have 8, so does it all even out?</p>
<p>I decided to respond to the original post prior to reading any of the other responses on the thread. As background, my dad was a high school teacher and I only applied to city & state schools undergrad.</p>
<p>Here's my reply to the OP:</p>
<p>Hear, Hear!! It's about time this was said!</p>
<p>I think "icantfindaname" hit the nail on the head. "I think a number of wealthy parents are upset that they can't buy their way in as in the old days." I don't think it's "wealthy" parents it's the "almost wealthy parents". With the exception of the "old days" portion of the quote. In the "old days" kids didn't apply to those schools that their parents couldn't afford...unaffordable colleges didn't even hit the radar screen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hear, Hear!! It's about time this was said!
[/quote]
^^^^^ Ditto</p>
<p>My D does get some financial aid including loans and fortunately (and by dint of lots of hard work on her part) some good merit money. if the merit money had not been earned then we would have been looking at CC or bigger loans.</p>
<p>The only thing that bothers ME is when folks with family AGI in excess of $150,000 a year post here saying they are sooooo poor and can't afford college. Choices choices.</p>